But that itself does not prove they would not have passed it given more time which is what you claimed in the first place.
I know. I've seen what could be your sources on the Internet assuming you didn't post them yourself, and it's the same playbook the Confederacy Amen corner always uses. Just post the excerpts that seem to support their point of view, and we're supposed to accept that they could find the excerpts but couldn't find the entire op-eds.
They're in books. You are free to read the books cited. Or the newspapers cited - or the books those newspaper editorials are in. You'll have to do some actual reading.
And you think that because someone just put the snippets in their books that you don't have to validate them and prove they're saying what you claim they're saying? No.
Correct! I cited the source. That's what a citation is. If you are oh so curious, feel free to go to those books and see where they cited a quote or fact from.
Once again, you hide behind "Godwin's law" instead of addressing the point that is being made. Hitler knew his own motivations, but that doesn't obligate us to accept that he was telling the truth in 1945 when he said he didn't want war in 1939. The same applies to your point about the Confederacy knowing their own motivations.
Once again you immediately resort to Hitler/Nazi references. You claim Davis and others were lying yet you offer no evidence that they did not believe exactly what they said at the time.
It speaks nothing, since they were proven wrong.
No they weren't.
Here we go again......repeats snipped
Yes. Here we go.
"The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of the taxes by the Government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government from a confederated republic, to a national sectional despotism." Charleston Mercury 2 days before the November 1860 election
"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty to seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests. These are the reasons why these people do not wish the South to secede from the Union. They, the North, are enraged at the prospect of being despoiled of the rich feast upon which they have so long fed and fattened, and which they were just getting ready to enjoy with still greater gout and gusto. They are mad as hornets because the prize slips them just as they are ready to grasp it. These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union." The New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861
On November 19, 1860 Senator Robert Toombs gave a speech to the Georgia convention in which he denounced the "infamous Morrill bill." The tariff legislation, he argued, was the product of a coalition between abolitionists and protectionists in which "the free-trade abolitionists became protectionists; the non-abolition protectionists became abolitionists." Toombs described this coalition as "the robber and the incendiary... united in joint raid against the South."
“And slavery, you say, is no longer an element in the contest.” Union Colonel James Jaquess
“No, it is not, it never was an essential element. It was only a means of bringing other conflicting elements to an earlier culmination. It fired the musket which was already capped and loaded. There are essential differences between the North and the South that will, however this war may end, make them two nations.” Jefferson Davis Davis rejects peace with reunion
https://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/jefferson-davis-rejects-peace-with-reunion-1864/
“Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late… It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision… It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.” Maj. General Patrick R. Cleburne, CSA
Robert Barnwell Rhett, who served in the House of Representatives and then in the Senate, said in 1850: "The great object of free governments is liberty. The great test of liberty in modern times, is to be free in the imposition of taxes, and the expenditure of taxes.... For a people to be free in the imposition and payment of taxes, they must lay them through their representatives." Consequently, because they were being taxed without corresponding representation, the Southern States had been reduced to the condition of colonies of the North and thus were no longer free. The solution was determined by John Cunningham to exist only in independence.
The legislation of this Union has impoverished them [the Southern States] by taxation and by a diversion of the proceeds of our labor and trade to enriching Northern Cities and States. These results are not only sufficient reasons why we would prosper better out of the union but are of themselves sufficient causes of our secession. Upon the mere score of commercial prosperity, we should insist upon disunion. Let Charleston be relieved from her present constrained vassalage in trade to the North, and be made a free port and my life on it, she will at once expand into a great and controlling city.
In a letter to the Carolina Times in 1857, Representative Laurence Keitt wrote, "I believe that the safety of the South is only in herself."
James H. Hammond likewise stated in 1858, "I have no hesitation in saying that the Plantation States should discard any government that makes a protective tariff its policy."
from Georgia:
“The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.
But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.
All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon……”
From South Carolina:
The Revolution of 1776, turned upon one great principle, self government, and self taxation, the criterion of self government. Where the interests of two people united together under one Government, are different, each must have the power to protect its interests by the organization of the Government, or they cannot be free. The interests of Great Britain and of the Colonies, were different and antagonistic. Great Britain was desirous of carrying out the policy of all nations toward their Colonies, of making them tributary to their wealth and power. She had vast and complicated relations with the whole world. Her policy toward her North American Colonies, was to identify them with her in all these complicated relations; and to make them bear, in common with the rest of the Empire, the full burden of her obligations and necessities. She had a vast public debt; she had a European policy and an Asiatic policy, which had occasioned the accumulation of her public debt, and which kept her in continual wars. The North American Colonies saw their interests, political and commercial, sacrificed by such a policy. Their interests required, that they should not be identified with the burdens and wars of the mother country. They had been settled under Charters, which gave them self government, at least so far as their property was concerned. They had taxed themselves, and had never been taxed by the Government of Great Britain. To make them a part of a consolidated Empire, the Parliament of Great Britain determined to assume the power of legislating for the Colonies in all cases whatsoever. Our ancestors resisted the pretension. They refused to be a part of the consolidated Government of Great Britain.
The Southern States, now stand exactly in the same position towards the Northern States, that the Colonies did towards Great Britain. The Northern States, having the majority in Congress, claim the same power of omnipotence in legislation as the British parliament. "The General Welfare," is the only limit to the legislation of either; and the majority in Congress, as in the British parliament, are the sole judges of the expediency of the legislation, this "General Welfare" requires. Thus, the Government of the United States has become a consolidated Government; and the people of the Southern State, are compelled to meet the very despotism, their fathers threw off in the Revolution of 1776.
And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress, is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.
There is another evil, in the condition of the Southern toward the Northern States, which our ancestors refused to bear toward Great Britain. Our ancestors not only taxed themselves, but all the taxes collected from them, were expended among them. Had they submitted to the pretensions of the British Government, the taxes collected from them, would have been expended in other parts of the British Empire. They were fully aware of the effect of such a policy in impoverishing the people from whom taxes are collected, and in enriching those who receive the benefit of their expenditure. To prevent the evils of such a policy, was one of the motives which drove them on to Revolution. Yet this British policy, has been fully realized towards the Southern States, by the Northern States.
The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected, three fourths of them are expended at the North. This cause, with others, connected with the operation of the General Government, has made the cities of the South provincial. Their growth is paralyzed; they are mere suburbs of Northern cities. The agricultural productions of the South are the basis of the foreign commerce of the United States; yet Southern cities do not carry it on. Our foreign trade, is almost annihilated…… To make, however, their numerical power available to rule the Union, the North must consolidate their power. It would not be united, on any matter common to the whole Union in other words, on any constitutional subject for on such subjects divisions are as likely to exist in the North as in the South. Slavery was strictly, a sectional interest. If this could be made the criterion of parties at the North, the North could be united in its power; and thus carry out its measures of sectional ambition, encroachment, and aggrandizement. To build up their sectional predominance in the Union, the Constitution must be first abolished by constructions; but that being done, the consolidation of the North to rule the South, by the tariff and slavery issues, was in the obvious course of things.
From Texas
Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated States to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility [sic] and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings.
By the disloyalty of the Northern States and their citizens and the imbecility of the Federal Government, infamous combinations of incendiaries and outlaws have been permitted in those States and the common territory of Kansas to trample upon the federal laws, to war upon the lives and property of Southern citizens in that territory, and finally, by violence and mob law, to usurp the possession of the same as exclusively the property of the Northern States.
The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refused reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harrassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas.
These and other wrongs we have patiently borne in the vain hope that a returning sense of justice and humanity would induce a different course of administration.
The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holdings States in their domestic institutions.
In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon the unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States.
By consolidating their strength, they have placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress, and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and encroachments.
They have proclaimed, and at the ballot box sustained, the revolutionary doctrine that there is a "higher law" than the constitution and laws of our Federal Union, and virtually that they will disregard their oaths and trample upon our rights.
They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture, and have repeatedly murdered Southern citizens while lawfully seeking their rendition.
They have invaded Southern soil and murdered unoffending citizens, and through the press their leading men and a fanatical pulpit have bestowed praise upon the actors and assassins in these crimes, while the governors of several of their States have refused to deliver parties implicated and indicted for participation in such offences, upon the legal demands of the States aggrieved.
They have, through the mails and hired emissaries, sent seditious pamphlets and papers among us to stir up servile insurrection and bring blood and carnage to our firesides.
They have sent hired emissaries among us to burn our towns and distribute arms and poison to our slaves for the same purpose.
They have impoverished the slave-holding States by unequal and partial legislation, thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance.
They have refused to vote appropriations for protecting Texas against ruthless savages, for the sole reason that she is a slave-holding State.
Actions like turning down express constitutional protection of slavery effectively forever.
A resolution, with no impact, and which was repealed later that year once they got over their shock over Bull Run.
A resolution which showed their intent. They were not fighting over slavery.
OK, Senator Robert Toombs was a Democrat slave owner, Rep. John H. Reagan of Texas supported the right to own slaves and called for an amendment to protect slavery, President Jefferson Davis said in 1858 that secession was justified if abolitionists were elected, and Robert Barnwell Rhett was a Democrat slave owner.
And? The fact that someone was a slave owner does not mean secession was about slavery or even that that person supported secession due to slavery. Slavery was simply not threatened within the US. Why secede if preservation of slavery is the concern? Secession was always going to destroy slavery.
When they weren't getting pissed off at escaped slaves getting sancuary in the North.
sure they were upset at the Northern states' refusal to enforce the fugitive slave clause of the US Constitution. That was unconstitutional and a violation of the deal that had been made between them. Note how secession was not going to change that. In fact, as a foreign country, states of the US were going to return zero runaway slaves instead of only returning some of them. What secession was going to change was the collection of very high tariffs on Southern goods.
You haven't substantiated anything. You posted excerpts from your favorite Confederacy Amen Corner approved sources, who somehow managed to find the excerpts but can't produce the entire op-eds. What few complete op-eds I could find refuted the point you were trying to make with them.
False! I have substantiated them. I posted where they came from, the dates and often even the page numbers. It is for you to find them if you want to read the entire op eds. You have yet to find an entire op ed from which I drew a quote that refutes that quote.
Prove what was said. Your sources were able to find the excerpts, so you or they should be able to find the entire op-eds.
I provided the sources, dates and sometimes even page numbers. That is a standard citation.
You don't get to decide which parts are relevant. I posted the entire op-ed, something you're conveniently unable to do. Show me where I lied about what was said by pointing it out in the op-ed.
I certainly get to decide which parts are relevant when making my case. You have yet to post a single op ed in its entirety which refutes a quote I posted from that op ed.
Both the Democrat run Confederacy and the free traitors relied on slave labor to drive down prices. That is not only relevant, it may or may not be a coincidence, given that it was Southerners from your "cradle of Conservatism" like Clinton, Bush, and others who got us addicted to communist slave labor.
I got news for ya. The North was "relying" on the slave labor from the slaves it sold too. You see, the North hardly produced any exports. They serviced Southern exports produced in part by slave labor. As for big business supporting free trade today - gosh, where is Wall Street located? Oh.
I don't defend those who particicpated in the illegal slave trade. I know there were bad guys, but they were acting on their own, not in any official capacity as what was happening in the Confederacy.,/P>
Huh? The Confederacy was only acting in favor of its independence. It never participated in the slave trade.
New England wasn't the culprit, the bad players working from there were.
The Culture of New England had no problem accepting all that blood money. They certainly never gave any of it back. Can you imagine the Ivy League coughing up the billions of dollars from their endowments that blood money would be worth today? Not a chance.
And I don't defend them or any slave traders, unlike you who have consistantly defended the consumers.
That's a bald faced lie. I haven't "defended" the consumers. I've said slavery was sadly, common practice throughout the world up until industrialization. Sadly it was.
Here we go with that again. They came over by choice, and built the nation that gives leftists like you the freedom to trash it.
Hunger doesn't leave people much of a choice. They came over and were exploited horribly just like the chattel slaves were. Of course, Leftists like you want to hide that fact so that you can demonize the South exclusively while not admitting all the faults of the North.
No, you posted excerpts, which you somehow were able to access but are completely unable to find the full op-eds.
Unable to find? I didn't look for the full op eds. Why should I? That's for you to do if you're so determined the read them. I already provided perfectly valid standard citations.
TwelveOfTwenty desperately trying to get FLT-Bird to do his work for him by finding full op eds he thinks will help his arguments, then said...
There was no mention of war. They were calling for tariffs.
They were pointing out the importance of those tariffs to their region economically. They were pointing out how they would lose out if the Southern states left and were making the argument to use violence to prevent them from leaving - ie war.
I just said I don't care if the products of their slave labor were hit with tariffs when they tariffed other's imported goods themselves, but you won't let that stop you from reading more into it than was there.
and I don't care if the North missed out on profits from its captive market and from not being able to service goods produced by Southern states and from not being able to lavish money raised from tariffs on Southern imported goods for its own corporate subsidies and infrastructure projects.
Why do I have to substantiate your sources?,/P>
You don't. I've already substantiated them.
You posted these excerpts, now prove they're legitmate and the op-eds say what you claim they say. If you were able to find the excerpts, then it shouldn't be a problem to just post the full op-eds you got them from, assuming they're real of course. Don't ask me to substantiate your sources for you.
I don't have to do that. You do if you're so keen to read the op eds. I've already provided the standard citations for any quote or source. If you think its so important to read the entire op eds then it shouldn't be a problem to just go find those op eds for yourself. It shows that you've never written any scholarly work. Nobody provides entire books or articles, etc for everything they cite. Nobody is expected to. That would be asinine.
That wasn't my question. What tariff applied by the North against Southern made goods would you say provoked secession? You keep making this case, so give us the number.
The tariff of abominations which was repealed in favor of the Walker Tariff. Then it when it was clear the 17% Walker Tariff was going to be replaced by the Morrill Tariff which would have at least doubled tariff rates, the Southern States left. They knew, that was just going to be the first bite of the apple. It wasn't going to stop there. Indeed, it didn't. Tariff Rates were raised to about 50% which was TRIPLE the rate of the ante bellum Walker Tariff.
Not if they had denied thinking that owning slaves was a right, because they owned slaves.
That's not what you said. You said you didn't care what any of those Southern leaders said about anything because they owned slaves. Well gosh, the Founding Fathers - at least most of them - owned slaves too. So you must not have cared what they said about anything either.
They never did, until forced by defeat to free them.
They were willing to and took steps to show their good faith willingness to do so. After all, we're talking about intent here.
repeats snipped.
"The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of the taxes by the Government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government from a confederated republic, to a national sectional despotism." Charleston Mercury 2 days before the November 1860 election
"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty to seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests. These are the reasons why these people do not wish the South to secede from the Union. They, the North, are enraged at the prospect of being despoiled of the rich feast upon which they have so long fed and fattened, and which they were just getting ready to enjoy with still greater gout and gusto. They are mad as hornets because the prize slips them just as they are ready to grasp it. These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union." The New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861
On November 19, 1860 Senator Robert Toombs gave a speech to the Georgia convention in which he denounced the "infamous Morrill bill." The tariff legislation, he argued, was the product of a coalition between abolitionists and protectionists in which "the free-trade abolitionists became protectionists; the non-abolition protectionists became abolitionists." Toombs described this coalition as "the robber and the incendiary... united in joint raid against the South."
“And slavery, you say, is no longer an element in the contest.” Union Colonel James Jaquess
“No, it is not, it never was an essential element. It was only a means of bringing other conflicting elements to an earlier culmination. It fired the musket which was already capped and loaded. There are essential differences between the North and the South that will, however this war may end, make them two nations.” Jefferson Davis Davis rejects peace with reunion
https://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/jefferson-davis-rejects-peace-with-reunion-1864/
“Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late… It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision… It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.” Maj. General Patrick R. Cleburne, CSA,
Robert Barnwell Rhett, who served in the House of Representatives and then in the Senate, said in 1850: "The great object of free governments is liberty. The great test of liberty in modern times, is to be free in the imposition of taxes, and the expenditure of taxes.... For a people to be free in the imposition and payment of taxes, they must lay them through their representatives." Consequently, because they were being taxed without corresponding representation, the Southern States had been reduced to the condition of colonies of the North and thus were no longer free. The solution was determined by John Cunningham to exist only in independence:
The legislation of this Union has impoverished them [the Southern States] by taxation and by a diversion of the proceeds of our labor and trade to enriching Northern Cities and States. These results are not only sufficient reasons why we would prosper better out of the union but are of themselves sufficient causes of our secession. Upon the mere score of commercial prosperity, we should insist upon disunion. Let Charleston be relieved from her present constrained vassalage in trade to the North, and be made a free port and my life on it, she will at once expand into a great and controlling city.
In a letter to the Carolina Times in 1857, Representative Laurence Keitt wrote, "I believe that the safety of the South is only in herself."
James H. Hammond likewise stated in 1858, "I have no hesitation in saying that the Plantation States should discard any government that makes a protective tariff its policy."
from Georgia:
“The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.
But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.
All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon……”
From South Carolina:
The Revolution of 1776, turned upon one great principle, self government, and self taxation, the criterion of self government. Where the interests of two people united together under one Government, are different, each must have the power to protect its interests by the organization of the Government, or they cannot be free. The interests of Great Britain and of the Colonies, were different and antagonistic. Great Britain was desirous of carrying out the policy of all nations toward their Colonies, of making them tributary to their wealth and power. She had vast and complicated relations with the whole world. Her policy toward her North American Colonies, was to identify them with her in all these complicated relations; and to make them bear, in common with the rest of the Empire, the full burden of her obligations and necessities. She had a vast public debt; she had a European policy and an Asiatic policy, which had occasioned the accumulation of her public debt, and which kept her in continual wars. The North American Colonies saw their interests, political and commercial, sacrificed by such a policy. Their interests required, that they should not be identified with the burdens and wars of the mother country. They had been settled under Charters, which gave them self government, at least so far as their property was concerned. They had taxed themselves, and had never been taxed by the Government of Great Britain. To make them a part of a consolidated Empire, the Parliament of Great Britain determined to assume the power of legislating for the Colonies in all cases whatsoever. Our ancestors resisted the pretension. They refused to be a part of the consolidated Government of Great Britain.
The Southern States, now stand exactly in the same position towards the Northern States, that the Colonies did towards Great Britain. The Northern States, having the majority in Congress, claim the same power of omnipotence in legislation as the British parliament. "The General Welfare," is the only limit to the legislation of either; and the majority in Congress, as in the British parliament, are the sole judges of the expediency of the legislation, this "General Welfare" requires. Thus, the Government of the United States has become a consolidated Government; and the people of the Southern State, are compelled to meet the very despotism, their fathers threw off in the Revolution of 1776.
And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress, is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.
There is another evil, in the condition of the Southern toward the Northern States, which our ancestors refused to bear toward Great Britain. Our ancestors not only taxed themselves, but all the taxes collected from them, were expended among them. Had they submitted to the pretensions of the British Government, the taxes collected from them, would have been expended in other parts of the British Empire. They were fully aware of the effect of such a policy in impoverishing the people from whom taxes are collected, and in enriching those who receive the benefit of their expenditure. To prevent the evils of such a policy, was one of the motives which drove them on to Revolution. Yet this British policy, has been fully realized towards the Southern States, by the Northern States.
The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected, three fourths of them are expended at the North. This cause, with others, connected with the operation of the General Government, has made the cities of the South provincial. Their growth is paralyzed; they are mere suburbs of Northern cities. The agricultural productions of the South are the basis of the foreign commerce of the United States; yet Southern cities do not carry it on. Our foreign trade, is almost annihilated…… To make, however, their numerical power available to rule the Union, the North must consolidate their power. It would not be united, on any matter common to the whole Union in other words, on any constitutional subject for on such subjects divisions are as likely to exist in the North as in the South. Slavery was strictly, a sectional interest. If this could be made the criterion of parties at the North, the North could be united in its power; and thus carry out its measures of sectional ambition, encroachment, and aggrandizement. To build up their sectional predominance in the Union, the Constitution must be first abolished by constructions; but that being done, the consolidation of the North to rule the South, by the tariff and slavery issues, was in the obvious course of things.
From Texas
Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated States to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility [sic] and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings.
By the disloyalty of the Northern States and their citizens and the imbecility of the Federal Government, infamous combinations of incendiaries and outlaws have been permitted in those States and the common territory of Kansas to trample upon the federal laws, to war upon the lives and property of Southern citizens in that territory, and finally, by violence and mob law, to usurp the possession of the same as exclusively the property of the Northern States.
The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refused reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harrassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas.
These and other wrongs we have patiently borne in the vain hope that a returning sense of justice and humanity would induce a different course of administration.
The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holdings States in their domestic institutions.
In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon the unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States.
By consolidating their strength, they have placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress, and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and encroachments.
They have proclaimed, and at the ballot box sustained, the revolutionary doctrine that there is a "higher law" than the constitution and laws of our Federal Union, and virtually that they will disregard their oaths and trample upon our rights.
They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture, and have repeatedly murdered Southern citizens while lawfully seeking their rendition.
They have invaded Southern soil and murdered unoffending citizens, and through the press their leading men and a fanatical pulpit have bestowed praise upon the actors and assassins in these crimes, while the governors of several of their States have refused to deliver parties implicated and indicted for participation in such offences, upon the legal demands of the States aggrieved.
They have, through the mails and hired emissaries, sent seditious pamphlets and papers among us to stir up servile insurrection and bring blood and carnage to our firesides.
They have sent hired emissaries among us to burn our towns and distribute arms and poison to our slaves for the same purpose.
They have impoverished the slave-holding States by unequal and partial legislation, thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance.
They have refused to vote appropriations for protecting Texas against ruthless savages, for the sole reason that she is a slave-holding State.
The Republican party was only formed in 1856, and they didn't even have enough votes to try until 1864, but then they were blocked by the Democrats until enough Democrats were replaced by Republicans to finally get it passed. The fact that they were able to pass abolition and send it to the states nine years after being formed would be enough to prove to anyone with a functioning brain they were abolitionists, as the Democrats themselves said.
They did not support abolition until very late in the war. Its not so much that they could not accomplish it politically. Its that they didn't want to do it. They said so many times.
Lincoln said a lot of things that could be seen as anti abolition, but he was dealing with a population that had many different viewpoints on abolition as you're so fond of pointing out, and he had to work with all of them to get things done. Frederick Douglas understood this when he later said "Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined."
There is zero evidence to support any claim that Lincoln was just trying to appease popular sentiment in the North which was against abolition until very late in the war. All the evidence is that he himself did not favor abolition until very late in the war. Whether it be him as a lawyer taking a case that returned an escaped slave to bondage, or getting Republicans to introduce and pass the North's slavery forever by express constitutional amendment in both houses, and then getting multiple states to ratify it or his public and private comments. Lincoln was no abolitionist nor were the vast majority of Republicans until about 1864.
Slavery was abolished by the Republicans nine years after the party was formed, and four years after the Democrats accused them of trying to do just that.
You're deliberately trying to conflate a later outcome with an earlier intent.
Your words would mean a lot more if you could put together a consistant narrative. The Republicans freed slaves but they were anti abolitionists. The South offered to free the slaves even though they couldn't. The abolitionists were terrorists but the slave owners who paid other to kidnap slaves weren't.
I've been quite consistent. The Republicans were not abolitionists and made that very clear until they changed their minds very late in the war. The Confederate government offered to free the slaves which it certainly had the power to do, in exchange for military aid from abroad. Not all abolitionists were terrorists but those who used terror to support their political goals were indeed terrorists. Slave owners who paid others to return their escaped slaves were not trying to accomplish a political goal. They were trying to recover their property. They were acting legally at the time. You or I not liking it 160 years later, does not make it illegal then.
Then say so now.,/P>
I've made it perfectly clear I think slavery awful. I've said so several times already.
More of your convoluted logic. The South couldn't have abolished slavery because they only existed for four years, but they offered to do exactly that in return for military aid. The Republicans were not abolitionists but managed to abolish slavery nine years after they were formed.
More of the truth. The South didn't have much of a change to abolish slavery given it was only independent for 4 years and had to fight a war of national survival that whole time. They did offer to do so in exchange for foreign military aid. The Republicans by their own multiple public admissions were not abolitionists. They only decided to support abolition in 1864.
I don't care what you said, because the Democrat run Confederacy has plenty of atrocities to answer for, legal or not. The fact that they didn't participate in this one occurrence doesn't refute that.
Ah yes, the ole "Hey look over there!" argument. I've never claimed the CSA was perfect. I said the Lincoln administration committed ethnic cleansing and genocide against the Santee Sioux and the Winnebago. So they did.
No, cherry picking is like when you choose to only post excerpts when you could post the entire op-ed or a link to the op-ed. After all, you managed to find the excerpts, so why can't your or your source post the entire op-ed? That shouldn't be difficult if your excerpts are valid, should it?,/P>
Back to this laughable BS. Nobody posts an entire book when one excerpt from it makes the point they are making. Same goes for a newspaper. Why do you expect others to do your research for you? You were provided standard citations. If you don't like that, too bad. Go dig them up yourself if you insist on reading the whole thing. It shouldn't be that difficult if you are actually interested should it?
You also didn't use the term "the 5 civilized tribes". Your exact quote was "Most of the "civilized tribes" in Oklahoma sided with the Confederacy." which you used to make your point regardless of who you borrowed it from. My point stands. If the "civilized" tribes joined the Confederacy, then what does that make the tribes that didn't in your eyes?
As anybody who had actually studied the period would know, there were 5 major tribes which were relocated to Oklahoma. They were referred to as the 5 civilized tribes. Most of them sided with the CSA. As to what anybody who was not in the 5 civilized tribes was, you'll have to take that up with whoever coined the term the 5 civilized tribes.
The only reality was this was that nothing came of it. In fact you've built your case on policies that went no where and produced nothing, while brushing aside the one policy that was ratified.
We were discussing intent and I provided the evidence showing the CSA offered to abolish slavery in exchange for foreign military aid. They offered. They empowered their ambassador to agree to a treaty to that effect. Its not their fault that Britain and France chose not to take them up on that offer. The fact that they offered showed they were willing.
What I said was true. They could have written their Constitution without the explicit protections for slavery, but as they said numerous times it was their intention to preserve and protect slavery.,/P>
Their intention was to carry on with the US constitution but to strengthen the explicit rights of states and to cut down on wasteful government spending. Those were their main concerns.
Once again, you cherry pick the facts that support your one sided point of view of Lincoln and the North being the bad guys while ignoring others, but the fact is what happened to Native Americans was also done by the South before, during, and after the CW.,/P>
After the war the Southern states had no say in the federal government for 12 years. They certainly weren't responsible then. During the war it was the Lincoln administration which carried out ethnic cleansing and genocide of native peoples. The CSA had nothing to do with it. The fact is that the North actually were the bad guys who wiped out most of the Plains Indians and confined the few survivors to concentration camps. Grant was president, Sherman was the chief of staff and Sheridan had field command. It was done at the behest of Northern railroad companies.
Here's what the Confederacy's offers meant. Repeats Snipped
The Confederate Constitution neither required nor prohibited slavery in any territories it acquired.
We all know what those promises would have meant anyway, but I'm sure you won't let that stop you from using the freedoms that came from that to continue pretending the South was innocent in all of this.,/P>
So you have nothing. The CSA offered to let the 5 civilized tribes of Oklahoma come in as an equal state. The US never offered Native Americans anything anywhere near as good.
repeats snipped
"The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of the taxes by the Government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government from a confederated republic, to a national sectional despotism." Charleston Mercury 2 days before the November 1860 election
"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty to seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests. These are the reasons why these people do not wish the South to secede from the Union. They, the North, are enraged at the prospect of being despoiled of the rich feast upon which they have so long fed and fattened, and which they were just getting ready to enjoy with still greater gout and gusto. They are mad as hornets because the prize slips them just as they are ready to grasp it. These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union." The New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861
On November 19, 1860 Senator Robert Toombs gave a speech to the Georgia convention in which he denounced the "infamous Morrill bill." The tariff legislation, he argued, was the product of a coalition between abolitionists and protectionists in which "the free-trade abolitionists became protectionists; the non-abolition protectionists became abolitionists." Toombs described this coalition as "the robber and the incendiary... united in joint raid against the South."
“And slavery, you say, is no longer an element in the contest.” Union Colonel James Jaquess
“No, it is not, it never was an essential element. It was only a means of bringing other conflicting elements to an earlier culmination. It fired the musket which was already capped and loaded. There are essential differences between the North and the South that will, however this war may end, make them two nations.” Jefferson Davis Davis rejects peace with reunion
https://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/jefferson-davis-rejects-peace-with-reunion-1864/
“Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late… It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision… It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.” Maj. General Patrick R. Cleburne, CSA,
Robert Barnwell Rhett, who served in the House of Representatives and then in the Senate, said in 1850: "The great object of free governments is liberty. The great test of liberty in modern times, is to be free in the imposition of taxes, and the expenditure of taxes.... For a people to be free in the imposition and payment of taxes, they must lay them through their representatives." Consequently, because they were being taxed without corresponding representation, the Southern States had been reduced to the condition of colonies of the North and thus were no longer free. The solution was determined by John Cunningham to exist only in independence:
The legislation of this Union has impoverished them [the Southern States] by taxation and by a diversion of the proceeds of our labor and trade to enriching Northern Cities and States. These results are not only sufficient reasons why we would prosper better out of the union but are of themselves sufficient causes of our secession. Upon the mere score of commercial prosperity, we should insist upon disunion. Let Charleston be relieved from her present constrained vassalage in trade to the North, and be made a free port and my life on it, she will at once expand into a great and controlling city.
In a letter to the Carolina Times in 1857, Representative Laurence Keitt wrote, "I believe that the safety of the South is only in herself."
James H. Hammond likewise stated in 1858, "I have no hesitation in saying that the Plantation States should discard any government that makes a protective tariff its policy."
from Georgia:
“The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.
But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.
All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon……”
From South Carolina:
The Revolution of 1776, turned upon one great principle, self government, and self taxation, the criterion of self government. Where the interests of two people united together under one Government, are different, each must have the power to protect its interests by the organization of the Government, or they cannot be free. The interests of Great Britain and of the Colonies, were different and antagonistic. Great Britain was desirous of carrying out the policy of all nations toward their Colonies, of making them tributary to their wealth and power. She had vast and complicated relations with the whole world. Her policy toward her North American Colonies, was to identify them with her in all these complicated relations; and to make them bear, in common with the rest of the Empire, the full burden of her obligations and necessities. She had a vast public debt; she had a European policy and an Asiatic policy, which had occasioned the accumulation of her public debt, and which kept her in continual wars. The North American Colonies saw their interests, political and commercial, sacrificed by such a policy. Their interests required, that they should not be identified with the burdens and wars of the mother country. They had been settled under Charters, which gave them self government, at least so far as their property was concerned. They had taxed themselves, and had never been taxed by the Government of Great Britain. To make them a part of a consolidated Empire, the Parliament of Great Britain determined to assume the power of legislating for the Colonies in all cases whatsoever. Our ancestors resisted the pretension. They refused to be a part of the consolidated Government of Great Britain.
The Southern States, now stand exactly in the same position towards the Northern States, that the Colonies did towards Great Britain. The Northern States, having the majority in Congress, claim the same power of omnipotence in legislation as the British parliament. "The General Welfare," is the only limit to the legislation of either; and the majority in Congress, as in the British parliament, are the sole judges of the expediency of the legislation, this "General Welfare" requires. Thus, the Government of the United States has become a consolidated Government; and the people of the Southern State, are compelled to meet the very despotism, their fathers threw off in the Revolution of 1776.
And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress, is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.
There is another evil, in the condition of the Southern toward the Northern States, which our ancestors refused to bear toward Great Britain. Our ancestors not only taxed themselves, but all the taxes collected from them, were expended among them. Had they submitted to the pretensions of the British Government, the taxes collected from them, would have been expended in other parts of the British Empire. They were fully aware of the effect of such a policy in impoverishing the people from whom taxes are collected, and in enriching those who receive the benefit of their expenditure. To prevent the evils of such a policy, was one of the motives which drove them on to Revolution. Yet this British policy, has been fully realized towards the Southern States, by the Northern States.
The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected, three fourths of them are expended at the North. This cause, with others, connected with the operation of the General Government, has made the cities of the South provincial. Their growth is paralyzed; they are mere suburbs of Northern cities. The agricultural productions of the South are the basis of the foreign commerce of the United States; yet Southern cities do not carry it on. Our foreign trade, is almost annihilated…… To make, however, their numerical power available to rule the Union, the North must consolidate their power. It would not be united, on any matter common to the whole Union in other words, on any constitutional subject for on such subjects divisions are as likely to exist in the North as in the South. Slavery was strictly, a sectional interest. If this could be made the criterion of parties at the North, the North could be united in its power; and thus carry out its measures of sectional ambition, encroachment, and aggrandizement. To build up their sectional predominance in the Union, the Constitution must be first abolished by constructions; but that being done, the consolidation of the North to rule the South, by the tariff and slavery issues, was in the obvious course of things.
From Texas
Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated States to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility [sic] and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings.
By the disloyalty of the Northern States and their citizens and the imbecility of the Federal Government, infamous combinations of incendiaries and outlaws have been permitted in those States and the common territory of Kansas to trample upon the federal laws, to war upon the lives and property of Southern citizens in that territory, and finally, by violence and mob law, to usurp the possession of the same as exclusively the property of the Northern States.
The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refused reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harrassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas.
These and other wrongs we have patiently borne in the vain hope that a returning sense of justice and humanity would induce a different course of administration.
The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holdings States in their domestic institutions.
In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon the unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States.
By consolidating their strength, they have placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress, and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and encroachments.
They have proclaimed, and at the ballot box sustained, the revolutionary doctrine that there is a "higher law" than the constitution and laws of our Federal Union, and virtually that they will disregard their oaths and trample upon our rights.
They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture, and have repeatedly murdered Southern citizens while lawfully seeking their rendition.
They have invaded Southern soil and murdered unoffending citizens, and through the press their leading men and a fanatical pulpit have bestowed praise upon the actors and assassins in these crimes, while the governors of several of their States have refused to deliver parties implicated and indicted for participation in such offences, upon the legal demands of the States aggrieved.
They have, through the mails and hired emissaries, sent seditious pamphlets and papers among us to stir up servile insurrection and bring blood and carnage to our firesides.
They have sent hired emissaries among us to burn our towns and distribute arms and poison to our slaves for the same purpose.
They have impoverished the slave-holding States by unequal and partial legislation, thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance.
They have refused to vote appropriations for protecting Texas against ruthless savages, for the sole reason that she is a slave-holding State.
I have no interest in reading from authors who are basically saying the same thing you're saying, when I have the Confederacy's own documents and actions to prove what happened.
I have no interest in hearing the same old Leftist PC Revisionist dogma when I have the facts, quotes from various newspapers and quotes from the people at the time to prove what the two sides' real motivations were.
Your point was that Lincoln didn't abolish slavery because he didn't live to see it through. Does that also apply to the troops who gave their lives to defeat Hitler and Tojo? Yes or no.>/P>
Once again, LOL! That's all your gibberish here deserves.
repeats snipped.
"The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of the taxes by the Government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government from a confederated republic, to a national sectional despotism." Charleston Mercury 2 days before the November 1860 election
"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty to seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests. These are the reasons why these people do not wish the South to secede from the Union. They, the North, are enraged at the prospect of being despoiled of the rich feast upon which they have so long fed and fattened, and which they were just getting ready to enjoy with still greater gout and gusto. They are mad as hornets because the prize slips them just as they are ready to grasp it. These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union." The New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861
On November 19, 1860 Senator Robert Toombs gave a speech to the Georgia convention in which he denounced the "infamous Morrill bill." The tariff legislation, he argued, was the product of a coalition between abolitionists and protectionists in which "the free-trade abolitionists became protectionists; the non-abolition protectionists became abolitionists." Toombs described this coalition as "the robber and the incendiary... united in joint raid against the South."
“And slavery, you say, is no longer an element in the contest.” Union Colonel James Jaquess
“No, it is not, it never was an essential element. It was only a means of bringing other conflicting elements to an earlier culmination. It fired the musket which was already capped and loaded. There are essential differences between the North and the South that will, however this war may end, make them two nations.” Jefferson Davis Davis rejects peace with reunion
https://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/jefferson-davis-rejects-peace-with-reunion-1864/
“Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late… It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision… It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.” Maj. General Patrick R. Cleburne, CSA,
Robert Barnwell Rhett, who served in the House of Representatives and then in the Senate, said in 1850: "The great object of free governments is liberty. The great test of liberty in modern times, is to be free in the imposition of taxes, and the expenditure of taxes.... For a people to be free in the imposition and payment of taxes, they must lay them through their representatives." Consequently, because they were being taxed without corresponding representation, the Southern States had been reduced to the condition of colonies of the North and thus were no longer free. The solution was determined by John Cunningham to exist only in independence:
The legislation of this Union has impoverished them [the Southern States] by taxation and by a diversion of the proceeds of our labor and trade to enriching Northern Cities and States. These results are not only sufficient reasons why we would prosper better out of the union but are of themselves sufficient causes of our secession. Upon the mere score of commercial prosperity, we should insist upon disunion. Let Charleston be relieved from her present constrained vassalage in trade to the North, and be made a free port and my life on it, she will at once expand into a great and controlling city.
In a letter to the Carolina Times in 1857, Representative Laurence Keitt wrote, "I believe that the safety of the South is only in herself."
James H. Hammond likewise stated in 1858, "I have no hesitation in saying that the Plantation States should discard any government that makes a protective tariff its policy."
from Georgia:
“The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.
But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.
All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon……”
From South Carolina:
The Revolution of 1776, turned upon one great principle, self government, and self taxation, the criterion of self government. Where the interests of two people united together under one Government, are different, each must have the power to protect its interests by the organization of the Government, or they cannot be free. The interests of Great Britain and of the Colonies, were different and antagonistic. Great Britain was desirous of carrying out the policy of all nations toward their Colonies, of making them tributary to their wealth and power. She had vast and complicated relations with the whole world. Her policy toward her North American Colonies, was to identify them with her in all these complicated relations; and to make them bear, in common with the rest of the Empire, the full burden of her obligations and necessities. She had a vast public debt; she had a European policy and an Asiatic policy, which had occasioned the accumulation of her public debt, and which kept her in continual wars. The North American Colonies saw their interests, political and commercial, sacrificed by such a policy. Their interests required, that they should not be identified with the burdens and wars of the mother country. They had been settled under Charters, which gave them self government, at least so far as their property was concerned. They had taxed themselves, and had never been taxed by the Government of Great Britain. To make them a part of a consolidated Empire, the Parliament of Great Britain determined to assume the power of legislating for the Colonies in all cases whatsoever. Our ancestors resisted the pretension. They refused to be a part of the consolidated Government of Great Britain.
The Southern States, now stand exactly in the same position towards the Northern States, that the Colonies did towards Great Britain. The Northern States, having the majority in Congress, claim the same power of omnipotence in legislation as the British parliament. "The General Welfare," is the only limit to the legislation of either; and the majority in Congress, as in the British parliament, are the sole judges of the expediency of the legislation, this "General Welfare" requires. Thus, the Government of the United States has become a consolidated Government; and the people of the Southern State, are compelled to meet the very despotism, their fathers threw off in the Revolution of 1776.
And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress, is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.
There is another evil, in the condition of the Southern toward the Northern States, which our ancestors refused to bear toward Great Britain. Our ancestors not only taxed themselves, but all the taxes collected from them, were expended among them. Had they submitted to the pretensions of the British Government, the taxes collected from them, would have been expended in other parts of the British Empire. They were fully aware of the effect of such a policy in impoverishing the people from whom taxes are collected, and in enriching those who receive the benefit of their expenditure. To prevent the evils of such a policy, was one of the motives which drove them on to Revolution. Yet this British policy, has been fully realized towards the Southern States, by the Northern States.
The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected, three fourths of them are expended at the North. This cause, with others, connected with the operation of the General Government, has made the cities of the South provincial. Their growth is paralyzed; they are mere suburbs of Northern cities. The agricultural productions of the South are the basis of the foreign commerce of the United States; yet Southern cities do not carry it on. Our foreign trade, is almost annihilated…… To make, however, their numerical power available to rule the Union, the North must consolidate their power. It would not be united, on any matter common to the whole Union in other words, on any constitutional subject for on such subjects divisions are as likely to exist in the North as in the South. Slavery was strictly, a sectional interest. If this could be made the criterion of parties at the North, the North could be united in its power; and thus carry out its measures of sectional ambition, encroachment, and aggrandizement. To build up their sectional predominance in the Union, the Constitution must be first abolished by constructions; but that being done, the consolidation of the North to rule the South, by the tariff and slavery issues, was in the obvious course of things.
From Texas
Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated States to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility [sic] and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings.
By the disloyalty of the Northern States and their citizens and the imbecility of the Federal Government, infamous combinations of incendiaries and outlaws have been permitted in those States and the common territory of Kansas to trample upon the federal laws, to war upon the lives and property of Southern citizens in that territory, and finally, by violence and mob law, to usurp the possession of the same as exclusively the property of the Northern States.
The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refused reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harrassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas.
These and other wrongs we have patiently borne in the vain hope that a returning sense of justice and humanity would induce a different course of administration.
The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holdings States in their domestic institutions.
In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon the unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States.
By consolidating their strength, they have placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress, and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and encroachments.
They have proclaimed, and at the ballot box sustained, the revolutionary doctrine that there is a "higher law" than the constitution and laws of our Federal Union, and virtually that they will disregard their oaths and trample upon our rights.
They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture, and have repeatedly murdered Southern citizens while lawfully seeking their rendition.
They have invaded Southern soil and murdered unoffending citizens, and through the press their leading men and a fanatical pulpit have bestowed praise upon the actors and assassins in these crimes, while the governors of several of their States have refused to deliver parties implicated and indicted for participation in such offences, upon the legal demands of the States aggrieved.
They have, through the mails and hired emissaries, sent seditious pamphlets and papers among us to stir up servile insurrection and bring blood and carnage to our firesides.
They have sent hired emissaries among us to burn our towns and distribute arms and poison to our slaves for the same purpose.
They have impoverished the slave-holding States by unequal and partial legislation, thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance.
They have refused to vote appropriations for protecting Texas against ruthless savages, for the sole reason that she is a slave-holding State.
Your account must have been hacked, because someone who hates the Democrat run Confederacy and is trying to prove me right posted all of this under your account.
None of the above proves you right about anything. On the contrary it proves me right.
The difference is that the US wasn't founded solely on the priciple of preserving slavery.,/P>
Nor was the CSA.
I know you're going to come back with "the Confederacy wasn't founded to preserve slavery", but they said numerous times that it was.
No they didn't.
You'll also post more spam about how secession wasn't about preserving slavery, but I'll let their actions speak for them, and those actions were that they never abolished slavery until forced by defeat to do so.
Their actions were that they turned down slavery forever by express constitutional amendment and offered to abolish slavery in exchange for foreign military aid. They made it quite clear their intent in leaving was not to preserve something (slavery) which was never threatened in the first place.
I gave all of your sources the benefit of the doubt, and you didn't even make it to 15,000. If we discounted the 9,000 which we could rightfully do since it only said they "talked of having 9,000 men" and only said "but with regard to their artillery, and its being manned in part by Negroes", you didn't even make it to 6,000.,/P>
You said there were hardly any. I gave you union sources which indicated many thousands of Black Confederates.
Because they weren't lying but as you yourself said exact counts were impossible in those days.,/P>
there were obviously many thousands of Black Confederates.
They never did, even to prove their true intentions to the nations they were trying to get military aid from. Well maybe that's not entirely right, as they proved their true intentions by refusing to abolish slavery.,/P>
We're talking about intent. They signalled their willingness to do so. Its not their fault Britain and France chose not to accept their offer. They were quite willing. You know who else didn't abolish slavery during the war? The USA....Why didn't it abolish slavery? It could have. It just chose not to. Gosh. Imagine that.
They were founded by abolitionists in 1856, and nine years later abolished slavery. That was only four years after the slave owning states seceded over claims they were going to do exactly that.
The vast majority of Republicans including the de facto leader of the party, Abe Lincoln were not abolitionists and were opposed to abolition as they themselves stated many many times.
Maybe 100% of your cherry picked pieces of evidence, but not all of it.
THE evidence and the facts at the time show neither secession nor the war were "about" slavery.
And I've seen no evidence that half of the op-eds you posted were ever even written, much less that they made the points you said they were making. You first.
You've seen standard citations....exactly the same kind you would find in any book or research paper had you ever written one.
He toured the US twice, in 1842 and after the CW. In 1842 he made some stops in the South and was so sickened by slavery that he cancelled his tour in the South. Here's more.
Dickens was an abolitionist....quite openly so.
So why to you keep voting McConnells and Grahams into Congress?
Why do you keep voting the Charlie Bakers and Larry Hogans and Chris Christies and Susan Collins' into office?There are lots of RINOs to purge....unfortunately even from very conservative areas. Look at Pierre Delecto and that Governor from Utah. Utah is as conservative as anywhere but.......
Do you tie with the Southern abolitionists, or the Southerners who voted to ratify abolition?,/P>
Of course. You realize it was the pre war elected representatives of the Southern states who voted to ratify the 13th amendment....right?
The difference is, the Republicans abolished it.
After coming to support abolition only very late in the war.
Did the PC Revisionists write all of those excerpts and links I posted above?,/P>
The South then as now was democratic. Different people had different opinions. When over 94% of the free population did not own slaves, what do you think they were fighting for? It certainly wasn't slavery.
If they could have escaped I'm sure they would have, and I'm sure they could have found refuge in the North. Too bad the South wouldn't give up their slaves without being defeated first.
They could have simply run away. Lots of others did. Instead they chose to murder a lot of innocent people. Too bad the North sold the slaves in the first place and then continued to profit from slavery for many more years.
Yes, yes, I know, some states in the North had slavery too, but they abolished it without being forced by another power.
The Southern states offered to abolish slavery in exchange for foreign military aid. Its not their fault Britain and France chose not to take them up on their offer. They showed their intent by offering it.
The main targets for the USAF were industrial, communications, and yes military targets. The fact that innocent children were killed was the fault of Germany and Japan, not the Allies.,/P>
in the end, the indiscriminate bombing of entire cities only hardened the resolve of people to fight to the bitter end. It had the same effect on the Brits when they were bombed.
Thanks to the free trade deals that many of your Southern Conservative representatives voted for and Southerner Bush 2 signed, companies are getting rich off of slave labor now.
Its hilarious you try to blame even this on the South. Hello????? Lots of Northern reps voted for it too. Lots of corporations located in the North lobbied for it too. Where do you think Wall Street is located? Hint: its not in the heart of Dixie.
As the Congressional report at the time stated: there would have been no Ku Klux Klan had bad laws and crooked governments which oppressed Southerners not been in place.
FIFY
First of all, you lifted this word for word from an article written by an author whose sympathies were clearly with the Confederacy. The person who drafted the report on the KKK that he and you cited, Congressman Fernando Wood, was a Democrat who supported slavery and opposed the 13th Amendment. In fact, he was one of the Democrats who blocked passage of the 13th Amendment in 1864. None of that was mentioned in the article, and all of this disqualifies him as an impartial witness for the Democrat formed KKK.
He was an elected politician from New York. Its hilarious you claim anybody who took a position you don't like is somehow "disqualified". Here's a news flash! There were no impartial witnesses. People took political stances back then just like they do now. The Congressional inquiry found that the KKK's formation was caused by the disenfranchisement of most Southern voters resulting in the installation of corrupt carpet bagger governments (backed up by Union League terrorists) who then stole everything they possibly could.
And it gets better. Showing a complete lack of awareness of this, the author closed by making the statement "Had America ended slavery peacefully — as dozens of other countries, including the British, French, Spanish, Danish, and others did in the nineteenth century, none of this would have happened." Yes, he actually said that, after posting comments from a Democrat who opposed abolition.
And? He's right about that. Had the US adopted a compensated emancipation scheme that would have diffused this key wedge issue that was used to unite Northerners behind the Northern corporate fatcats' economic interests which lay in sky high tariffs on Southern goods. That's exactly what Rhett and others had pointed out.
My statement proves that given the same amount of time as the five states that did ratify it, and with secession and the threat of a civil war, they didn't repeat didn't ratify it. It's your alternate realities about what might have happened that don't prove anything.
They're in books. You are free to read the books cited.
For what? All that would prove is they were able to dig up the op-eds but were only willing to post the excerpts that they think prove their point.
Or the newspapers cited or the books those newspaper editorials are in. You'll have to do some actual reading.
I read the op-eds I could find since you were unwilling or more likely unable to substantiate them. Taken in their entirety rather than just the excerpts you cherry picked, they said the exact opposite of what you were trying to prove.
Correct! I cited the source. That's what a citation is. If you are oh so curious, feel free to go to those books and see where they cited a quote or fact from.
Why should I? All that would prove is that the authors posted the excerpts you say they posted. That doesn't prove anything about whether they were authentic or what the full op-eds said. These are books that say what you want to hear, but there are any number that say the exact opposite. All I'm asking for is the full op-eds, and that's after I did your job and found two of them myself. We don't have to take the authors' of those books word for it just because they said what you want to hear.
They were able to post excerpts, so if those excerpts were legitimate then they should have been able to post the entire op-eds. They didn't, either because they made them up, or more likely because posting the entire op-eds would nullify the point they were trying to make.
No, I'm not going to go looking for books that only say what you want to hear, or take it upon myself to substantiate what you're taking on faith, that is that the books are telling the truth. Prove the op-eds are legitimate and say what you claim they say by either posting the entire op-ed or posting a link. Any other reply will be rightfully taken as a confession that you can't.
A bunch of repeats snipped.
Once again you immediately resort to Hitler/Nazi references. You claim Davis and others were lying yet you offer no evidence that they did not believe exactly what they said at the time.
Because they also said the exact opposite, and never freed the slaves until forced by total defeat to do so.
Oh, and there's this.
Lying about one's intentions would fall well within "to the last extremity".
Speaking of which...
Repeats of the Confederacy lying about how secession and the civil war weren't about slavery snipped.
The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holdings States in their domestic institutions.
In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon the unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States.
By consolidating their strength, they have placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress, and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and encroachments.
They have proclaimed, and at the ballot box sustained, the revolutionary doctrine that there is a "higher law" than the constitution and laws of our Federal Union, and virtually that they will disregard their oaths and trample upon our rights.
They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture, and have repeatedly murdered Southern citizens while lawfully seeking their rendition.
They have invaded Southern soil and murdered unoffending citizens, and through the press their leading men and a fanatical pulpit have bestowed praise upon the actors and assassins in these crimes, while the governors of several of their States have refused to deliver parties implicated and indicted for participation in such offences, upon the legal demands of the States aggrieved.
They have, through the mails and hired emissaries, sent seditious pamphlets and papers among us to stir up servile insurrection and bring blood and carnage to our firesides.
They have sent hired emissaries among us to burn our towns and distribute arms and poison to our slaves for the same purpose.
They have impoverished the slave-holding States by unequal and partial legislation, thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance.
They have refused to vote appropriations for protecting Texas against ruthless savages, for the sole reason that she is a slave-holding State.
If you can't see how these excerpts refute your own case, then keep posting them. I don't mind letting you refute your own case with their own words.
I don't need to post and reply these excerpts more than once, so two sets of repeats snipped.
In fact, I was able to reduce my entire reply to about 1/3 what it would have been just by cutting out all of the times you repeated the same point.
Actions like turning down nothing.
A resolution which showed their intent. They were not fighting over slavery.
Also a resolution they repealed later that year after getting over their shock of losing at Bull Run and before they won any substantial victories, so that shows they were fighting to abolish slavery, which they did. Funny how you don't think any of that shows their real intentions.
And? The fact that someone was a slave owner does not mean secession was about slavery or even that that person supported secession due to slavery.
More of your twisted logic. The slave owners and slavery defenders weren't fighting to preserve slavery, and the side that abolished slavery wasn't actually trying to.
sure they were upset at the Northern states' refusal to enforce the fugitive slave clause of the US Constitution. That was unconstitutional and a violation of the deal that had been made between them. Note how secession was not going to change that. In fact, as a foreign country, states of the US were going to return zero runaway slaves instead of only returning some of them.
The resistance movements in Nazi Germany were illegal too, while everything the Nazis did was legal. Making atrocities legal doesn't make them right.
I know you'll come back with "I'm not defending slavery which was horrible.", but defences like these make it look that way.
What secession was going to change was the collection of very high tariffs on Southern goods.
It did no such thing, as the op-eds you referenced clearly showed. It was just the opposite, it provoked the call for higher tariffs.
Now ask me if I care that the products produced by slave labor were tariffed.
I certainly get to decide which parts are relevant when making my case.
Not when the entire op-ed refutes the point you're trying to make in the first sentence, which I'll repeat here so the readers won't have to parse through your spam to find it.
Manchester Union Democrat, February 19, 1861 "Let Them Go"
This was an op-ed which started out with "Some of our Republican friends affect to be very indifferent to the secession of the Southern states. "Let them go—we can get along very well without them.""
This op-ed was answering that view with the writer's own opnions.
You have yet to post a single op ed in its entirety which refutes a quote the excerpt I posted from that op ed.
I don't have to. The war was won and slavery was abolished. End of story.
I got news for ya. The North was "relying" on the slave labor from the slaves it sold too. You see, the North hardly produced any exports. They serviced Southern exports produced in part by slave labor.
Once again your twisted logic is shown. On one hand the North couldn't do without slave produced products, but on the other hand they hit those same products with tariffs large enough to force the buyers to choose home grown, and provoked the slave holding states to secede.
As for big business supporting free trade today - gosh, where is Wall Street located? Oh.
Wall Street may be in New York, but many of the companies as well has Bush 1, Clinton, and Bush 2 who signed those free trade deals with China and gave them MFN status, along with many in Congress who voted for those trade deals, were from your "cradle of conservatism".
And if you ever chose cheaper made in Communist China over Made in USA, you made the same choice.
Used products don't count, since the money for manufacturing the products already went to China when the product was purchased new. A little tip for anyone who's interested.
Repeats snipped.
Huh? The Confederacy was only acting in favor of its independence. It never participated in the slave trade.
Tell that to the slaves who were forced to watch as their own children were sold into slavery in slave auctions.
The Culture of New England had no problem accepting all that blood money. They certainly never gave any of it back. Can you imagine the Ivy League coughing up the billions of dollars from their endowments that blood money would be worth today? Not a chance.
Only to virtue signal.
That's a bald faced lie. I haven't "defended" the consumers. I've said slavery was sadly, common practice throughout the world up until industrialization. Sadly it was.
From your previous post, "sure they were upset at the Northern states' refusal to enforce the fugitive slave clause of the US Constitution. That was unconstitutional and a violation of the deal that had been made between them." You didn't sound so sad when you posted this.
Hunger doesn't leave people much of a choice. They came over and were exploited horribly just like the chattel slaves were. Of course, Leftists like you want to hide that fact so that you can demonize the South exclusively while not admitting all the faults of the North.
We discussed this in posts 677, 681, and 684
They were pointing out the importance of those tariffs to their region economically. They were pointing out how they would lose out if the Southern states left and were making the argument to use violence to prevent them from leaving - ie war.
Show me the excerpts where they called for war instead of tariffs.
and I don't care if the North missed out on profits from its captive market and from not being able to service goods produced by Southern states and from not being able to lavish money raised from tariffs on Southern imported goods for its own corporate subsidies and infrastructure projects.
Good, then you're OK with the North raising tariffs on slave made goods. So am I, and I favor that with goods from communist China today. If it means I can't buy the latest smart TV every year so I can watch the football games we're supposedly boycotting in high resolution color, that's a sacrifice I'll have to make.
The tariff of abominations which was repealed in favor of the Walker Tariff. Then it when it was clear the 17% Walker Tariff was going to be replaced by the Morrill Tariff which would have at least doubled tariff rates, the Southern States left. They knew, that was just going to be the first bite of the apple. It wasn't going to stop there. Indeed, it didn't. Tariff Rates were raised to about 50% which was TRIPLE the rate of the ante bellum Walker Tariff.
Good. We should do that with goods from Communist China now, but the profit loving conservatives from your cradle of conservatism won't do it.
That's not what you said. You said you didn't care what any of those Southern leaders said about anything because they owned slaves. Well gosh, the Founding Fathers - at least most of them - owned slaves too. So you must not have cared what they said about anything either.
I said I didn't care about what the Democrats said about secession and war not being about slavery. If the founding fathers said they were against slavery I wouldn't believe them, but they did form a Union where slavery would ultimately be abolished, unlike the Democrats who formed their country to preserve slavery.
We have both agreed that the founding fathers were flawed men who created a great if flawed nation, and they built the framework that led to the abolition of slavery. Why do we have to keep going back and forth on this when we have already agreed on it?
They were willing to and took steps to show their good faith willingness to do so. After all, we're talking about intent here.
Their only intent was to get military aid. Promising to abolish slavery only showed that they understood how wrong it was. Apart from that, we don't know their intent since they never moved to actually abolish slavery. Actually, we know their intent by the fact that they didn't abolish slavery.
Multiple repeats snipped.
They did not support abolition until very late in the war. Its not so much that they could not accomplish it politically. Its that they didn't want to do it. They said so many times.
Nine years after they were formed, and after they had enough representation to prevent the Democrats from blocking abolition, they passed the 13th Amendment.
There is zero evidence to support any claim that Lincoln was just trying to appease popular sentiment in the North which was against abolition until very late in the war. All the evidence is that he himself did not favor abolition until very late in the war. Whether it be him as a lawyer taking a case that returned an escaped slave to bondage, or getting Republicans to introduce and pass the North's slavery forever by express constitutional amendment in both houses, and then getting multiple states to ratify it or his public and private comments. Lincoln was no abolitionist nor were the vast majority of Republicans until about 1864.
I'm not going to waste FR bandwidth playing your game. We've been over this. Here are the links to that discussion.
More wasted bandwidth repeats snipped.
You're deliberately trying to conflate a later outcome with an earlier intent.
Yet more of your twisted logic. They were founded by abolitionists Like Cassius Clay, said in their platform they wanted to end slavery, and then between 1859 and 1863 abandoned that policy until 1864. In between that time, the slave holding states accused them of being abolitionists and accused the North of offering sancuary to escaped slaves even though they weren't. Yeah, that makes sense.
Even more wasted bandwidth repeats snipped.
I've made it perfectly clear I think slavery awful. I've said so several times already.
I believed you before, but I'm not so sure now. You seem more angry with the Northerners who offered escaped slaves sanctuary than you are with the slave owners.
The South didn't have much of a change to abolish slavery given it was only independent for 4 years and had to fight a war of national survival that whole time.
Then you must really be impressed with the Republicans, who managed to abolish slavery nine years after being formed and immediately after getting the votes they needed to abolish slavery.
Ah yes, the ole "Hey look over there!" argument.
That would be a valid if I denied the North committed atrocities against Native Americans, but I haven't.
I've never claimed the CSA was perfect.
And I never claimed the North was perfect.
I said the Lincoln administration committed ethnic cleansing and genocide against the Santee Sioux and the Winnebago. So they did.
Part of a long line of atrocities carried out by the entire nation, whose freedoms you are willing to use to attack it for its treatment of the poor, slavery loving CSA and the Democrats who formed it.
As anybody who had actually studied the period would know, there were 5 major tribes which were relocated to Oklahoma. They were referred to as the 5 civilized tribes. Most of them sided with the CSA.
So now you want to concentrate on "5 civilized tribes" although you didn't use that term in you original comment on this issue, which was "Most of the "civilized tribes" in Oklahoma sided with the Confederacy." Now that you've been called out, you want to hide behind "5 civilized tribes".
As to what anybody who was not in the 5 civilized tribes was, you'll have to take that up with whoever coined the term the 5 civilized tribes.
Whoever coined that phrase is dead, but the person who said "Most of the "civilized tribes" in Oklahoma sided with the Confederacy." is sitting in front of your computer. My question to that person stands.
Their intention was to carry on with the US constitution but to strengthen the explicit rights of states and to cut down on wasteful government spending. Those were their main concerns.
That doesn't answer my point, which is they could have left the explicit protections for slavery out of their Constitution if they had wanted to, but they intended to preserve slavery.
After the war the Southern states had no say in the federal government for 12 years. They certainly weren't responsible then. During the war it was the Lincoln administration which carried out ethnic cleansing and genocide of native peoples. The CSA had nothing to do with it. The fact is that the North actually were the bad guys who wiped out most of the Plains Indians and confined the few survivors to concentration camps. Grant was president, Sherman was the chief of staff and Sheridan had field command. It was done at the behest of Northern railroad companies.
First, taking the land didn't all happen in the 12 years.
Second, "Sec. 2. (3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States." The only thing that stopped them is the same thing that freed rgeir slaves, abd that's total defeat.
And last, from Union and Confederate Indians in the Civil War, "In the fall of 1861, Colonel Douglas H. Cooper, commanding the department of Indian operations under authority from the Confederate Government, made several ineffectual efforts to have a conference with the old chief of for the purpose of effecting a peaceful settlement of the difficulties that were dividing the nation into two hostile camps. Finding Hopoeithleyhola unwavering in his loyalty to the United States, Colonel Cooper determined to force him into submission, destroy his power, or drive him out of the country, and at once commenced collecting forces, composed mostly of white troops, to attack him. In November and December, 1861, the battles of Chusto Talasah and Chustenhlah were fought, and the loyal Indians finally were defeated and forced to retire to Kansas in midwinter....In the spring of 1862 the United States Government sent an expedition of five thousand men under Colonel William Weer, 10th Kansas Infantry, into the Indian Territory to drive out the Confederate forces of Pike and Cooper, and to restore the refugee Indians to their homes." Everything you talk about is in this article, and the CSA had plenty of time for this while, as you put it, were fighting for their existance.
The Confederate Constitution neither required nor prohibited slavery in any territories it acquired.
Thank you.
So you have nothing. The CSA offered to let the 5 civilized tribes of Oklahoma come in as an equal state.
Another offer they never made good on. Your whole case is built on policies that were never ratified, and you write off the only policy that was ratified, abolition.
The US never offered Native Americans anything anywhere near as good.
Once again, LOL! That's all your gibberish here deserves.
Your point was that Lincoln didn't abolish slavery because he didn't live to see it through. Does that also apply to the troops who gave their lives to defeat Hitler and Tojo? Yes or no.
Nor was the CSA (founded to preserve slavery)...No they didn't(say numerous times that it was about preserving slavery)...(later) The vast majority of Republicans including the de facto leader of the party, Abe Lincoln were not abolitionists and were opposed to abolition as they themselves stated many many times.
I can hear FR groaning about another hit on their server space, but here you are.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
From Georgia.
For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property...
In 1820 the North endeavored to overturn this wise and successful policy and demanded that the State of Missouri should not be admitted into the Union unless she first prohibited slavery within her limits by her constitution.
Mr. Jefferson condemned the restriction and foresaw its consequences and predicted that it would result in the dissolution of the Union. His prediction is now history. The North demanded the application of the principle of prohibition of slavery to all of the territory acquired from Mexico and all other parts of the public domain then and in all future time. It was the announcement of her purpose to appropriate to herself all the public domain then owned and thereafter to be acquired by the United States. The claim itself was less arrogant and insulting than the reason with which she supported it. That reason was her fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists.
The Presidential election of 1852 resulted in the total overthrow of the advocates of restriction and their party friends. Immediately after this result the anti-slavery portion of the defeated party resolved to unite all the elements in the North opposed to slavery an to stake their future political fortunes upon their hostility to slavery everywhere. This is the party two whom the people of the North have committed the Government. They raised their standard in 1856 and were barely defeated. They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded.
The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.
It would appear difficult to employ language freer from ambiguity, yet for above twenty years the non-slave-holding States generally have wholly refused to deliver up to us persons charged with crimes affecting slave property.
The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party.
While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then...
The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon. Time and issues upon slavery were necessary to its completion and final triumph. The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among the people of the North, had been long dormant or passive; it needed only a question to arouse it into aggressive activity.
That reason was her fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists. The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity.
From Mississippi
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.
It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.
It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.
Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery;
It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.
From Texas
They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.
By consolidating their strength, they have placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress, and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and encroachments.
They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture...
She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.
From South Carolina
A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
Constitution of the Confederate States; March 11, 1861
Sec. 9. (4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
Sec. 2. (3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.
On the formation of black regiments in the Confederate army, by promising the troops their freedom: Howell Cobb, former general in Lee's army, and prominent pre-war Georgia politician: "If slaves will make good soldiers, then our whole theory of slavery is wrong." [Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 835.]
A North Carolina newspaper editorial: "it is abolition doctrine . . . the very doctrine which the war was commenced to put down." [North Carolina Standard, Jan. 17, 1865; cited in Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 835.]
Robert M.T. Hunter, Senator from Virginia, "What did we go to war for, if not to protect our property?"
Repeats snipped.
You said there were hardly any. I gave you union sources which indicated many thousands of Black Confederates.
Nope. Here are my first two posts on that point.
And we agree there were thousands. If that's your only point, we can exit this topic right now.
Why do you keep voting the Charlie Bakers and Larry Hogans and Chris Christies and Susan Collins' into office?There are lots of RINOs to purge....unfortunately even from very conservative areas.
Now who is playing "Look over there"? I know the North is sending alot of RINOs to Washington, but we also did alot of RINO hunting this year. Besides, I'm not the one calling my region the cradle of Conservatism.
Look at Pierre Delecto and that Governor from Utah. Utah is as conservative as anywhere but.......
No. Not because you're wrong, but because in this case you are dead right. Yuch!
Of course. You realize it was the pre war elected representatives of the Southern states who voted to ratify the 13th amendment....right?
I made the point to someone who said the Southern states were coerced into ratifying the amendment. He disagreed and challenged me to debate him on it, but it wasn't a hill I considered worth fighting for, especially after a year spent with your appalling defense of the Confederacy loaded with half truths and cherry picked facts. If you want to defend the South on that point, take it up with him.
As the Congressional report at the time stated: there would have been no Ku Klux Klan had bad laws and crooked governments which oppressed Southerners not been in place. FIFY
You didn't fix anything. This is just more of your cherry picking. This was the minority report, written by Democrats. The same party that founded the KKK.
The South then as now was democratic. Different people had different opinions. When over 94% of the free population did not own slaves, what do you think they were fighting for? It certainly wasn't slavery.
On the formation of black regiments in the Confederate army, by promising the troops their freedom: Howell Cobb, former general in Lee's army, and prominent pre-war Georgia politician: "If slaves will make good soldiers, then our whole theory of slavery is wrong." [Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 835.]
A North Carolina newspaper editorial: "it is abolition doctrine . . . the very doctrine which the war was commenced to put down." [North Carolina Standard, Jan. 17, 1865; cited in Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 835.]
Robert M.T. Hunter, Senator from Virginia, "What did we go to war for, if not to protect our property?"
They could have simply run away. Lots of others did. Instead they chose to murder a lot of innocent people.
More of your twisted logic. The slaves could have escaped, but the North was wrong for offering them sanctuary. Of course, all of this is easy for you to say because you never lived as a slave on any of those planatations. Alot easier than it was for the slaves to escape. If you had to watch families including yours split as children were sold to other masters, you would be singing a different tune.
Too bad the North sold the slaves in the first place and then continued to profit from slavery for many more years.
Bad players in the North arranged the sales illegally, and it was the slave states who bought them and sold their children to other masters as if they were animals.
in the end, the indiscriminate bombing of entire cities only hardened the resolve of people to fight to the bitter end. It had the same effect on the Brits when they were bombed.
Not entirely true. The constant bombing of the German and Japanese homelands made it impossible for their citizens to support the war effort. At least that was the goal. Whether it had its intended effect is open to debate. According to some Germans after the war, it was the USAF's precision bombing of their industry that had the most effect. And nothing you said answers my point that it was the Germans and Japanese, not the Allies, who were at fault for starting wars of conquest and forcing the Allies to destroy them to protect themselves, just as it was the slave owners and not the slaves who are responsible for their own children getting killed.
He was an elected politician from New York.
As you've pointed out and I've agreed, not everyone in the North was with the good guys. BTW, he was one of the Dems who lost his job, although he regained it a few years later. Again, not everyone in the North were with the good guys, so you don't need to come back with pointing that out.
This just proves the point that Lincoln had to work with all viewpoints to get things done, and the Democrats were blocking him as late as 1864. By 1865 there weren't enough of them left to block anything, and slavery was abolished.
Its hilarious you claim anybody who took a position you don't like is somehow "disqualified". Here's a news flash! There were no impartial witnesses. People took political stances back then just like they do now. The Congressional inquiry found that the KKK's formation was caused by the disenfranchisement of most Southern voters resulting in the installation of corrupt carpet bagger governments (backed up by Union League terrorists) who then stole everything they possibly could.
This is a perfect example of your cherry picking. That was the minority report, in this case the Democrat report, the same party that founded the KKK, in opposition to the majority. The idea that the Democrats of that time had any credibility on that issue is beyond rediculous.
He's right about that. Had the US adopted a compensated emancipation scheme that would have diffused this key wedge issue that was used to unite Northerners behind the Northern corporate fatcats' economic interests which lay in sky high tariffs on Southern goods. That's exactly what Rhett and others had pointed out.
Why should slave owners be compensated for losing the right to commit human rights abuses. Would we compensate the buyers of traficked women today for the loss of their services? I know you're going to say 1865, but they would have had no problem seeing what was wrong with paying human traffickers to capture people for slavery it if happened to them or their own children. You didn't need to be born after 1990 to understand that.
Besides, the person he cited was among those who voted against abolishion period, not abolition unless the slave owners were compensated. My point stands. This Democrat, slavery defender was not a credible source on the KKK.
So to repeat, who cares?